The defendant is charged [in count __]
with sexual assault in a spousal or cohabiting relationship. The statute
defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

no spouse or cohabitor shall compel
the other spouse or cohabitor to engage in sexual intercourse by <insert one
or both1
of the following:>

the use of force
against such other spouse or cohabitor, [or]

the threat of the
use of force against such other spouse or cohabitor which reasonably causes such
other spouse or cohabitor to fear physical injury.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Sexual intercourseThe first element is that the defendant
compelled the complainant to engage in sexual
intercourse. "Sexual
intercourse" means vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio or
cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex. Penetration, however slight, is
sufficient to complete vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, or fellatio and
does not require emission of semen. Penetration, however, is not required for
the commission of cunnilingus. Penetration may be committed by an object
manipulated by the actor into the genital or anal opening of the complainant's
body.2

Element 2 - Use of force or
threat of use of forceThe second element is that the sexual
intercourse was accomplished by <insert one or both of the following:>3

the use of force against
the complainant [or]

the threat of the use of
force against the complainant
which reasonably caused the complainant
to fear physical injury to (himself / herself ).

"Use
of force" means the use of a dangerous instrument or the use of actual
physical force or violence or superior physical strength against the
complainant. <Include as appropriate:>

"Dangerous
instrument"
means any instrument, article or substance which, under the circumstances in which it
is used or attempted or threatened to be used, is capable of causing death
or serious physical injury. "Serious physical injury" means physical injury
which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious
disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of
the function of any bodily organ. It is important to note that the article
need not be inherently dangerous; all that is required is that the article
was capable of causing death or serious physical injury under the
circumstances in which it was used. Any article or substance, without
limitation and even though harmless under normal use, may be found by you to
be a dangerous instrument if, under the circumstances of its use or
threatened or attempted use, it is capable of producing serious physical
injury or death. The state need not prove that in fact death or serious
physical
injury resulted, only that the instrument had that
potential under the circumstances.

It is not necessary
for the state to prove that the defendant was armed with or used any weapon for
you to find that the defendant used force. Use of force means that the
defendant must have used actual physical force or violence or superior physical
strength to compel the complainant to submit to sexual intercourse.

You may find a threat of
the use of force because you find that a threat was actually expressed or
you may find a threat implied from the circumstances and from what you find
to have been the defendant's conduct. Any such threat must have been
such that it reasonably caused the
complainant to fear physical injury
to (herself/himself). "Physical
injury" means impairment of physical condition or pain. Whether the fear of
physical injury was reasonable is a question of fact for you to determine from
the circumstance that you find existed at the time. <Reference if
appropriate evidence concerning, e.g., any injury inflicted, relative sizes,
place of occurrence, etc.>

In this case, the
state has charged that the sexual intercourse was compelled both by the use of
force and by the threat of the use of force. These are the two methods by which
compulsion may be demonstrated and proved. That element will be established as
long as each of you finds it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
intercourse was compelled either by the use of force or the threat of the use of
force. Simply put, it is not necessary for the state to prove that the
intercourse was compelled both by the use of force and by the threat of the use
of force, as long as each one of you is satisfied that it was compelled by force
or the threat of the use of force.4

Element 3 - Spousal or
cohabiting relationshipThe third element is that
the complainant was the (spouse / cohabitor) of the defendant. <Insert
appropriate definition:>

"Spouse" means a
husband or wife.

"Cohabitor" is any
person actually living with another person, both of whom have mutually assumed
the rights, duties and obligations that are usually manifested by married
people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual relations.5

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant compelled
the complainant to engage in sexual
intercourse, 2) (he/she) did so through the (use / threatened use) of force, and
3) the defendant and the complainant were at the time (in a spousal relationship / cohabiting).

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of sexual
assault in a (spousal / cohabiting) relationship, then you shall find the
defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then
find the defendant not guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
In State v. Chapman, 229 Conn. 529, 536-37 (1994), the court held that it
was improper to instruct regarding the "use of force . . . or the threat of the
use of force," when the defendant was charged only with ''use of force'' and no
evidence had been presented regarding "threat of use of force."

2
The definition of "sexual intercourse" in General Statutes § 53a-70b (a) is
identical to the definition in § 53a-65 (2), except that it does not limit it to
persons who are not married to one another.

4
The "use of force" and the "threat of the use of force" are not conceptually
distinct methods of compulsion for purposes of giving a unanimity instruction.
State v. Tucker, 226 Conn. 618, 644-50 (1993).

5
This definition of cohabitor is intended to include the parties to a civil
union. See State v. Arroyo, 181 Conn. 426, 432-33 (1980); State v.
Cayoutte, 25 Conn. App. 384, 391 (1991).

Commentary

It is not improper to instruct the
defendant under both § 53a-70 and § 53a-70b when there is a factual issue as to
whether the defendant and the victim were cohabiting. State v. Suggs,
209 Conn. 733, 741-50 (1989).

General Statutes § 54-86e, which
protects the identity of a victim of a sexual assault, does not apply to this
offense.